If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote: I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real intuitive and no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG. No real improvement? Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops of dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"? I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have an example? then you're doing something wrong. a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is recovering shadow detail. there are many others. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message ... In article , Gary Eickmeier wrote: I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real intuitive and no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG. No real improvement? Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops of dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"? I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have an example? then you're doing something wrong. a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is recovering shadow detail. there are many others. I agree. btw, I think your pc clock is wrong... One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones, is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively. -- Peter |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
"PeterN" wrote in message ... On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote: "nospam" wrote in message ... In article , Gary Eickmeier wrote: I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real intuitive and no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG. No real improvement? Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops of dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"? I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have an example? then you're doing something wrong. a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is recovering shadow detail. there are many others. I agree. btw, I think your pc clock is wrong... One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones, is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively. I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD format. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
On 2012-11-30 13:07:55 -0800, "Tim Conway" said:
"PeterN" wrote in message ... On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote: "nospam" wrote in message ... In article , Gary Eickmeier wrote: I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real intuitive and no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG. No real improvement? Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops of dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"? I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have an example? then you're doing something wrong. a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is recovering shadow detail. there are many others. I agree. btw, I think your pc clock is wrong... One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones, is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively. I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD format. Actually the Adobe format to use, which also allows you to keep layers intact, and have a smaller file size than an uncompressed TIFF is the PSD. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
"Savageduck" wrote in message news:2012113015240037335-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom... On 2012-11-30 13:07:55 -0800, "Tim Conway" said: "PeterN" wrote in message ... On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote: "nospam" wrote in message ... In article , Gary Eickmeier wrote: I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real intuitive and no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG. No real improvement? Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops of dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"? I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have an example? then you're doing something wrong. a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is recovering shadow detail. there are many others. I agree. btw, I think your pc clock is wrong... One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones, is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively. I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD format. Actually the Adobe format to use, which also allows you to keep layers intact, and have a smaller file size than an uncompressed TIFF is the PSD. I guess that's what I meant ot say....the PSD rather than the PCD. I usually use neither, just the RAW to TIF or RAW straight to JPG. Tim |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
On 11/30/2012 4:07 PM, Tim Conway wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message ... On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote: "nospam" wrote in message ... In article , Gary Eickmeier wrote: I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real intuitive and no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG. No real improvement? Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops of dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"? I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have an example? then you're doing something wrong. a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is recovering shadow detail. there are many others. I agree. btw, I think your pc clock is wrong... One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones, is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively. I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD format. Non-destructive editing is among the reasons I use smart objects and I also make extensive use of layers. -- Peter |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
On 11/30/2012 6:24 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-11-30 13:07:55 -0800, "Tim Conway" said: "PeterN" wrote in message ... On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote: "nospam" wrote in message ... In article , Gary Eickmeier wrote: I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real intuitive and no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG. No real improvement? Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops of dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"? I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have an example? then you're doing something wrong. a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is recovering shadow detail. there are many others. I agree. btw, I think your pc clock is wrong... One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones, is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively. I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD format. Actually the Adobe format to use, which also allows you to keep layers intact, and have a smaller file size than an uncompressed TIFF is the PSD. PSD is a proprietary form of TIFF. -- Peter |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
On 11/30/2012 5:15 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:07:55 -0500, "Tim Conway" wrote: "PeterN" wrote in message ... On 11/30/2012 11:13 AM, Tim Conway wrote: "nospam" wrote in message ... In article , Gary Eickmeier wrote: I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real intuitive and no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG. No real improvement? Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops of dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"? I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have an example? then you're doing something wrong. a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is recovering shadow detail. there are many others. I agree. btw, I think your pc clock is wrong... One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned ones, is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively. I agree too. There is probably a whole boatload of reasons if we want to list them all. JPG is way too destructive for any serious saving-editing-saving. In fact, if I'm going to a lot of different editing sessions on a photo, I either save it as a TIF or maybe photoshop's PCD format. Maybe that's why you're having problems, Tim. Those PCD files are so destructive that the choice to use them has been destroyed. The use of personal Communication Devices is a fast growing field. -- Peter |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:24:39 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
wrote: I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have an example? Then you never shot with a Sony a100!! It had wonderful RAW files to convert to beautiful jpegs, but the camera-produced jpegs were total crap. I got tired of having to process every single pic I took... My Nikons on the other hand produce very good jpegs, and the only advantage to using RAW is when you aren't taking a simple snapshot, and need to play with the extra light range that RAW gives you. The secret to that, BTW, is in the software. The software that comes with the camera is barely adequate, you need Adobe Camera Raw or Raw Therapy or something to take advantage of the extra bits. Jpegs are 8 bit (256 graduations) Raw can be 14 bits (16,000 graduations). Another thing you may need to know is that it seems to be better to over-expose digital rather than under expose, because of the noise factor. But if you don't shoot raw, you can't do either. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
"nospam" wrote in message ... In article , Gary Eickmeier wrote: I hate RAW and the processing necessary for it. Just not real intuitive and no standard file types and no real improvement over simpler JPEG. No real improvement? Do you seriously believe that extracting an additional 1 to 1.5 stops of dynamic range by using RAW over JPEGs is "no real improvement"? I have never EVER seen an improvement in RAW compared to JPG. Do you have an example? then you're doing something wrong. a simple example is correcting white balance. another example is recovering shadow detail. there are many others. I do these all the time with JPG. I said do you have an example photo, not wives tale. Gary Eickmeier |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sony: re-launch same DSLR, different name for idiots | Bertram Paul | Digital Photography | 28 | June 2nd 09 03:27 PM |
Sony: re-launch same DSLR, different name for idiots | Bertram Paul | Digital SLR Cameras | 29 | June 2nd 09 03:27 PM |
any digital infrared shooters? sony | joe mama | Digital Photography | 4 | August 31st 06 02:14 PM |
IDIOTS. COMPLETE IDIOTS | Ret Radd | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | February 6th 05 06:56 AM |
IDIOTS. COMPLETE IDIOTS-Like Ray Fischer | Dennis D. Carter | Digital Photography | 0 | February 5th 05 01:36 PM |